not sure what you two are trying to prove to one another but here is my 5c. Emma is right about the fact that Nole/Murray rivalry has just began. I do agree with some posters, Babs included, that the AO13 wasn't the highest quality match. However, the highest quality matches don't happen 'every day'.

As for Fedal, forget it. It's over. Rog is 32 yo and Nadal is nowhere to be seen. doubt that it will ever happen again.

I don't know about all these stats and articles, but Babs. women's final will never come even close with mens. It will never be as popular. I also wouldn't put too much into what most journalists are saying as they are paid to BS and make some drama most of the time. I watch women's tennis when I have nothing else to do. couldn't care less. I'd rather watch some guys playing futures than let's say Serena/Sharapova playing the final of Wimbledon.

In comparison, for example, the Djokovic / Wawrinka match was compelling viewing, as was the Federer / Murray match.

Good examples since both matches featured a clash of style: one offensive player, the other defensive.

Djokovic-Murray will never rise to Djokovic-Wawrinka status.

People, the Nole/Wawa match was very dramatic and interesting this year, but if you ever watched any of their previous matches, Djokovic is usually toying with Stan. c'mon let's be objective here. If you want to talk about Nole/Fed matches being very interesting, sure let's talk, but Nole/Wawa, give me a break. Stan played that one match out of his mind and that's it.

not sure what you two are trying to prove to one another but here is my 5c. Emma is right about the fact that Nole/Murray rivalry has just began. I do agree with some posters, Babs included, that the AO13 wasn't the highest quality match. However, the highest quality matches don't happen 'every day'.

As for Fedal, forget it. It's over. Rog is 32 yo and Nadal is nowhere to be seen. doubt that it will ever happen again.

I don't know about all these stats and articles, but Babs. women's final will never come even close with mens. It will never be as popular. I also wouldn't put too much into what most journalists are saying as they are paid to BS and make some drama most of the time. I watch women's tennis when I have nothing else to do. couldn't care less. I'd rather watch some guys playing futures than let's say Serena/Sharapova playing the final of Wimbledon.

That was a poor effort, Alex

First, I didn't say tennis needs Fed-Nadal back! I've said repeatedly that it inspired folks to come out and watch, and that Djokovic-Murray doesn't. To your point, not mine, I agree: it's over.

Second, don't let Emma do the reading and thinking for you. The article I cited was mocking the men for drawing lower than the women. Sacre blue!!! (Did you not notice: "There is the air pollution of the shrieking and grunting of many of the leading female players.") Then he went on to say what I've been saying: Federer-Nadal ...Djokovic-Murray = unwatchable.

In comparison, for example, the Djokovic / Wawrinka match was compelling viewing, as was the Federer / Murray match.

Good examples since both matches featured a clash of style: one offensive player, the other defensive.

Djokovic-Murray will never rise to Djokovic-Wawrinka status.

People, the Nole/Wawa match was very dramatic and interesting this year, but if you ever watched any of their previous matches, Djokovic is usually toying with Stan. c'mon let's be objective here. If you want to talk about Nole/Fed matches being very interesting, sure let's talk, but Nole/Wawa, give me a break. Stan played that one match out of his mind and that's it.

Fair enough, I guess I should restate that to make my point clear.

I was referring to the single Djokovic-Wawrinka match, not the totality of their series. I'm sure, on the whole, it has sucked.

In comparison, for example, the Djokovic / Wawrinka match was compelling viewing, as was the Federer / Murray match.

Good examples since both matches featured a clash of style: one offensive player, the other defensive.

Djokovic-Murray will never rise to Djokovic-Wawrinka status.

People, the Nole/Wawa match was very dramatic and interesting this year, but if you ever watched any of their previous matches, Djokovic is usually toying with Stan. c'mon let's be objective here. If you want to talk about Nole/Fed matches being very interesting, sure let's talk, but Nole/Wawa, give me a break. Stan played that one match out of his mind and that's it.

Fair enough, I guess I should restate that to make my point clear.

I was referring to the single Djokovic-Wawrinka match, not the totality of their series. I'm sure, on the whole, it has sucked.

So what I meant was: 2013 AO Djokovic-Wawrinka > ALL Djokovic-Murray

fair enough, agree with you there.

Babs, sorry I just glanced at everything you and Emma posted, there was just so much I'm very tired. Are you talking about worldwide TV rankings for both finals?

I never much cared for Fed-Nadal, but I do appreciate offensive tennis. Watching the Big 4 minus Fed slug it out leaves me flat. I had to question the state of the sport when I found myself rooting for Federer.

Emma and her ratings are all over the place. Except for Brits watching Murray down under, all ratings are local.

It would be interesting if there was a way to track TV viewings world wide but that's probably not that easy. what about the ratings in the States. you should be able to find that out. I mean I can google it but as I said, so bloody tired. I can hardly type. Trying to stay awake and have a regular night sleep.

I never much cared for Fed-Nadal, but I do appreciate offensive tennis. Watching the Big 4 minus Fed slug it out leaves me flat. I had to question the state of the sport when I found myself rooting for Federer.

Babs, I get your point but it is what it is. Djokovic does have that unique style of going from defense to offense. I watched him today in DC against Rochus on probably the worst clay court I've seen in my life and he was just amazing. 20 aces, 59 winners, 26UE ... just so aggressive, firing winners from all over. I was like wow. Sure, Rochus in not Fed but he tried really hard.

I'm not down on Nole or Andy per se. I like watching them otherwise. Those 3 vs one another is another story. NFL football is very similar in this respect. Two defensive teams are hard to watch at times.

I'm not down on Nole or Andy per se. I like watching them otherwise. Those 3 vs one another is another story. NFL football is very similar in this respect. Two defensive teams are hard to watch at times.

no, I know you are not (Emma does tend to be over protective when it comes to Murray btw). However, you bring local OZ ratings, she brings British ratings. If we bring Chinese ratings of course it's going to be women's final because Li Na is from China. If Raonic was in the final I'm sure that all country would watch it.

it's just all over the place no matter how you look at it. you can dig anything on the internet and paint a picture this or that way.

My friends, coworkers (very casual tennis watchers) now well who Fed, Nole and Nadal are. When it comes to women the know about Williams sisters and Sharapova and that's it. Li Na, Azarenka who? but that's in Canada, not sure about the States.

I never much cared for Fed-Nadal, but I do appreciate offensive tennis. Watching the Big 4 minus Fed slug it out leaves me flat. I had to question the state of the sport when I found myself rooting for Federer.

I never much cared for Fed-Nadal, but I do appreciate offensive tennis. Watching the Big 4 minus Fed slug it out leaves me flat. I had to question the state of the sport when I found myself rooting for Federer.

is boring, mind-numbing tennis is just stupid. All of those matches show outstanding shot-making from both players and a lot of offense. Yeah, they grind away and play defensive sometimes, but they do it because they can and because it works. Nevertheless, even when they do that, they still produce a ton of outstanding shots that keeps the matches exciting.

There's no more than 30 minutes of high quality tennis in these 5 hour matches. Now, ask yourself this...How much better would a match be, as experienced by the viewer, if those 30 minutes were condensed into 3:30 rather than played out over the course of +5:00?

"A lot better" is the correct answer.

Speaking of 3:30. From the player's perspective:

Quote

...It ended Murray's winning run in Shanghai and gave Djokovic his fifth title of the year.

"It was a thrilling match [and] very long," said the Serb. "Three and a half hours for best of three is quite long. But I have got used to it.

"Whenever I play Andy, I know it's going to be a gruelling fight with a lot of long rallies. It could have gone either way.

They can't finish 3 sets in 3:30. Come on, boys. Stop restarting points and waiting for the opponent to error like a couple of chickes**ts.

You know, I have to credit Roger for not playing long, gutless rallies. Explains why he'll outlast them all.

Tennis is a lower teir sport in the States and one of the few untimed sports in our sport culture. If these guys can't get the job done in a reasonable amount of time, the networks -- who've never choosen to cover men's matches in their entirety unless there are no other options (because they're too long for network TV) -- are going to move the end of their matches to one of their cable outlets (smaller audience) so that they can get to their regularly scheduled programming.

Having said all of the above, I'll go this far. As your videos show, they are capable of producing great tennis. But there's nothing great about 5-6 hour matches. That's just ridiculous. You know what they're indicative of? Missed opportunities, either not taken or choked away. Shorten them up, and I have no problem.

Length of match also influenced by cheaters consistently taking too long between points.

Some folks enjoy the long rallies.Surely there are some fantastic shots & points mixed in there.Others prefer more variety.

No question about the fitness or defensive abilities.I would certainly question their ability to create attacking opportunities.Personally I'm not a fan of risk averse players and the style they tend to play.

Babs, the question is 'how do you shorten them up (points)'? I preferred Nole much more back in 2007/08 when he was super aggressive but it didn't quiet work. Then something changed and has become more defensive. Sure he can fire winners from all over the court but still ... yet he is #1, 6 GS in his pocket.

check out Nole/Murray matches back in 2007 at IW and Miami. you wouldn't believe it. completely different players.

I think the major reason we are seeing 5/6 hours matches are slow surfaces. speed them up and things will change.

Babs, the question is 'how do you shorten them up (points)'? I preferred Nole much more back in 2007/08 when he was super aggressive but it didn't quiet work. Then something changed and has become more defensive. Sure he can fire winners from all over the court but still ... yet he is #1, 6 GS in his pocket.

check out Nole/Murray matches back in 2007 at IW and Miami. you wouldn't believe it. completely different players.

I think the major reason we are seeing 5/6 hours matches are slow surfaces. speed them up and things will change.

I started a thread elsewhere -- What's wrong with Nole? (AO is not special). My point there was that top 10 players were finishing their 5 set matches in 3:30, even grinders like David Ferrer. My point was it has less to do with the surface and more to do with the passivity in the points. Almagro was cracking mega winners, i.e., hitting through a slow surface against one of the best dogged defenders in the game. The surface, especially now that it's a little faster, wasn't a factor at all. They finished their 5 set match in almost exactly 3:30.

Why? Because Almagro is much more aggressive. He pulls the trigger before he gets in those stupid +20 ball rallies. I respect the dude for his intestinal fortitude.

Of the three I posted, only 1 of them was around 5 hours, if I recall correctly. And it isn't really the lack of offense that keeps the points so long. It's the incredible defense. One of them can start cranking offensive shots, but a lot of times, the other has enough defensive skills that they can put it back in the court and make the other hit two or three more balls before the point's over. And also, sometimes, the defensive shots end up being deep and hit the line or so and end up restarting the points.

And if you watched the Almagro-Ferrer match that you're referring to, the style of play of Almagro had nothing to do with it being shorter than a lot of five-setters. Ferrer played terrible the first two sets, and Almagro played terrible the last two. They played a solid third set, but the others were short due to short points due to unforced errors coming quickly.